Excellent video. Should be seen by every adult. Diehard proponents and practitioners of male circumcision are deceiving themselves and deceiving everybody else.
Thanks for the video. The popular TV show The Doctors make a mockery & laughter about circumcision. First, there are very effective vaccines for HPV, so HPV & cervical cancer are not indications to circumcise males. Second, the most important factor all women can control regarding HPV is to limit her number of sexual partners regardless of circumcision or not. Regarding hygiene, all men who are natural intact can clean themselves, & most natural intact men would have to not clean their penises for weeks before smegma would appear. Circumcised or not all body parts require periodic basic cleansing. The Doctors discussions about circumcision never come across as objective, but always lean toward circumcision is advantageous, & it is the parents choice. There are muslim families that would choose to have their female infants's genitals cut also, but that became illegal in 1996. Americans chose not to provide equal protection to male infants. The Doctors are neither thorough, accurate, nor genuine regarding male infantile circumcision. Good physicians scrutinize published medical research articles. A good physician does not look discriminatively for select support for predetermined convictions (as for circumcision). Good physicians recognize human right for body integrity, something never once mentioned by The Doctors. For over a hundred years, the medical industry has struggled to find one condition, disease, or another that circumcision either prevents or cures. None of the circumcision "benefits" were true in 1870, 1900, 1930, & none are true today including the decreased likelihood of contracting HIV. Circumcised or not, a condom need be used, so that in practical reality, there is no HIV relevant benefit with circumcision. I was rarely disturbed by any surgical involvement, EXCEPT each & every infant circumcision was quite disturbing, not just because of the procedure, but medical staff's treatment of, & often sexually inappropriate statements directed at infants while clamping, crushing, & cutting viable living part of his penis off. Most parents' have no clue what can & does go on during infant circumcisions. What actually occurs on regular basis is nothing like the demonstrations & tutorial videos you see on websites or television. These are of the most gentle & well performed, & do not represent what actually occurs during most circumcisions. Most infant circumcisions do not occur under sterile conditions recommended by AAP, but at best "clean" conditions. I've seem residents not wash their hands before putting on procedure gloves & performing circumcisions. Most circumcisions are performed by inadequately trained interns & residents, & I've observed 2 & 3 residents take turns going at infants' penises so that they can each sign off for the "circ" that day. They usually call it a "circ" as for the horrific circus they participate. As such, what should be 15 to 20 minutes becomes an hour or more of torture for the baby. AAP recommends adequate pain block. Almost 100%, your child will not receive even marginally adequate pain block. No, they will not, & when you are assured such by medical staff, that assurance is all lies. Oh, yes! Even the most skilled at circumcision are challenged to get adequate pain blockage from cream & injection anesthetics combined, & certainly residents in training are not even marginally skillful in injecting infantile penis for pain blockage. Each boy has slight anomalous or differing placed neuro-vascular pathways, & neuro-vascular pathways are not palpable in infant penises. Not at all. Therefore, each such injection itself is simply additional pain the baby must endure before the clips, clamps, crush, & cutting. Many or even most don't bother with lidocaine injections because the skill level to attain adequate injection technique is not possible without repetitive practice, trial & error. Further, the residents rotate & change so that there are always newbie interns & residents going at infants' penises in hospitals. The staff will provide seemingly genuine reassurance, but that assurance about your babies comfort & pain control is almost always COMPLETELY false. It is pitiful that North American (US & Canada) people are still engaged in a self inflicted & self sustained dilemma over infantile circumcision. All other advanced countries of the world abandoned infantile circumcision many decades ago. If circumcision had any advantages, United Kingdom's National Health Service (NHS) would not have stopped "compulsive routine" male infantile circumcision. Instead, NHS found disadvantages, complications & cost far outweighed "perceived" benefits, & further, that personal perceived benefits were greater than actual benefits. It is American fetish & perversion that defies understanding an infant's penis needs no manipulation or cutting, & keeps male infantile circumcision perpetuating. This & the medical industry would loose about a billion a year in billings if all parents decide not to circumcise. So doctors promote circumcising & disregard the potential harm & boy's right to bodily integrity. Infantile circumcision indicates something profoundly disturbing & sick about Americans, & of course Americans refute this degeneracy. American insistence on continuing to circumcise male infants is disturbing to the rest of the modern world & the most medically advanced countries (See International Refute to AAP 2012 circumcision decision report on official AAP website). Americans prefer staying uninformed, maintaining misinformation, & to ignorantly continue circumcising infant males no matter what. American people prefer ignorance & circumcised penis, even if that means the lives of a certain number of boys each year, & thousands of other (slightly or severely) botched circumcisions, the results of which remain for a male's lifetime, & most doctors have examined a number of circumcision mishap burdened penises. Still, The Doctors maintain an active popular circumcision proponent role rather than genuine medical integrity when discussing circumcision. Physicians who accommodate the resulting demand for infantile circumcision are in disregard of basic moral ethics of medical practice. It is strange that circumcising male infants has become an OB/GYN function. OB/GYN doctors have no other involvement with after birth care, specifically train & specialize about the female genitourinary system, but go at infant penis's to circumcise. Does that make sense other than it adds to OB/GYN insurance & medicaid billing? OB/GYN physicians found an additional obscure billing revenue, & from what I have observed, OB/GYNs are the most brutal when circumcising baby boys. I attended morbidity conference when an OB/GYN doctor reported she amputated the penis of a 3 day old baby. After the presentation, nearly all doctors' comments were concern about pending litigation & case effects on the woman's medical career. Only one doctor made a comment about damage to the child's body & life. That doctor said something like, "He's never going to have much length, but with good reconstructive surgery, he might still be able to father children without resorting to in vitro." Tragedies like this are not so rare, & instead, very few get any publicity, & that goes the same for deaths that occur from circumcision. Perhaps such catastrophic circumcision incident rates are low. more importantly, the catastrophe rate is 0% for those who don't get circumcised. So why does the medical industry have involvement & accept such unnecessary risk at the expense of infants? Oh, that's right, a billion a year in billings. Most doctors are in the know, & certainly would not allow interns or residents (who do most of the circumcising) to go at their own sons' penises. The same doctors will tell you it's fine & risks are minimal for your sons. When you choose to circumcise, & it doesn't turn out right, take a look in the mirror to see who's to blame.
Wonderful, extremely disturbing and highly informative remarks. This premeditated, brutal assault on babies and boys - some of it carried out by complete novices behind closed doors in hospitals of all places - is built on ignorance and deception. Hidden from view and shrouded in secrecy, systematic circumcision is actually a good indicator of the amount of barbarity and savagery going on in a society.
I have been in psychiatry for two months because I was walking in capital and was telling to people it is not ok to cut skin from male penises but now I know it is ok and once I said it is like women dont have skin on clitoris but I know it is not same.
In some way it is ok because of HIV, STD, because of phimosa and paraphimosa but in my opinion it is not OK because God made us perfect and nature made us perfect and we should not cut off forskin
Babies don't contract HIV or STDs from sex, and babies do not have phimosis or paraphimosis, so why cut them when nothing is wrong? These are things that only affect adults. And you realize that circumcision does not prevent HIV in developed countries right? Only in third world countries where the primary method of transmission is through heterosexual sex. And it only partially protects men getting HIV from women. It does not protect women, or men getting it from other men. The US is a mostly circumcised nation, and has higher HIV and STD transmission than in any European country (where they don't circumcise). Also, condoms are used to prevent these things (whether you are cut or not). And phimosis and paraphimosis are rare conditions that can be cured without circumcision. And even if that was the option, shouldn't it only be done if a male has that condition?
If you have chosen a modern style circumcision for your child that destroys the entire foreskin, you've already broken the covenant and moved into sexual assault. The original Jewish circumcision bears little resemblance to the current one.
@@crystallinemushroom4803 It involved removing far less tissue and leaving the glans covered or mostly covered. It's still painful, abusive and dumb but not as awful as the modern version which permanently exposes the entire glans. Jewish rabbis adopted the new, more dangerous, more damaging style in the middle of the 2nd century AD. It's a cultural practice, not a religious requirement of any religion anywhere including Judaism.
Excellent video. Should be seen by every adult. Diehard proponents and practitioners of male circumcision are deceiving themselves and deceiving everybody else.
Thanks for the video. The popular TV show The Doctors make a mockery & laughter about circumcision. First, there are very effective vaccines for HPV, so HPV & cervical cancer are not indications to circumcise males. Second, the most important factor all women can control regarding HPV is to limit her number of sexual partners regardless of circumcision or not. Regarding hygiene, all men who are natural intact can clean themselves, & most natural intact men would have to not clean their penises for weeks before smegma would appear. Circumcised or not all body parts require periodic basic cleansing.
The Doctors discussions about circumcision never come across as objective, but always lean toward circumcision is advantageous, & it is the parents choice. There are muslim families that would choose to have their female infants's genitals cut also, but that became illegal in 1996. Americans chose not to provide equal protection to male infants.
The Doctors are neither thorough, accurate, nor genuine regarding male infantile circumcision. Good physicians scrutinize published medical research articles. A good physician does not look discriminatively for select support for predetermined convictions (as for circumcision). Good physicians recognize human right for body integrity, something never once mentioned by The Doctors.
For over a hundred years, the medical industry has struggled to find one condition, disease, or another that circumcision either prevents or cures. None of the circumcision "benefits" were true in 1870, 1900, 1930, & none are true today including the decreased likelihood of contracting HIV. Circumcised or not, a condom need be used, so that in practical reality, there is no HIV relevant benefit with circumcision.
I was rarely disturbed by any surgical involvement, EXCEPT each & every infant circumcision was quite disturbing, not just because of the procedure, but medical staff's treatment of, & often sexually inappropriate statements directed at infants while clamping, crushing, & cutting viable living part of his penis off. Most parents' have no clue what can & does go on during infant circumcisions. What actually occurs on regular basis is nothing like the demonstrations & tutorial videos you see on websites or television. These are of the most gentle & well performed, & do not represent what actually occurs during most circumcisions. Most infant circumcisions do not occur under sterile conditions recommended by AAP, but at best "clean" conditions. I've seem residents not wash their hands before putting on procedure gloves & performing circumcisions. Most circumcisions are performed by inadequately trained interns & residents, & I've observed 2 & 3 residents take turns going at infants' penises so that they can each sign off for the "circ" that day. They usually call it a "circ" as for the horrific circus they participate. As such, what should be 15 to 20 minutes becomes an hour or more of torture for the baby.
AAP recommends adequate pain block. Almost 100%, your child will not receive even marginally adequate pain block. No, they will not, & when you are assured such by medical staff, that assurance is all lies. Oh, yes! Even the most skilled at circumcision are challenged to get adequate pain blockage from cream & injection anesthetics combined, & certainly residents in training are not even marginally skillful in injecting infantile penis for pain blockage. Each boy has slight anomalous or differing placed neuro-vascular pathways, & neuro-vascular pathways are not palpable in infant penises. Not at all. Therefore, each such injection itself is simply additional pain the baby must endure before the clips, clamps, crush, & cutting. Many or even most don't bother with lidocaine injections because the skill level to attain adequate injection technique is not possible without repetitive practice, trial & error. Further, the residents rotate & change so that there are always newbie interns & residents going at infants' penises in hospitals. The staff will provide seemingly genuine reassurance, but that assurance about your babies comfort & pain control is almost always COMPLETELY false.
It is pitiful that North American (US & Canada) people are still engaged in a self inflicted & self sustained dilemma over infantile circumcision. All other advanced countries of the world abandoned infantile circumcision many decades ago. If circumcision had any advantages, United Kingdom's National Health Service (NHS) would not have stopped "compulsive routine" male infantile circumcision. Instead, NHS found disadvantages, complications & cost far outweighed "perceived" benefits, & further, that personal perceived benefits were greater than actual benefits.
It is American fetish & perversion that defies understanding an infant's penis needs no manipulation or cutting, & keeps male infantile circumcision perpetuating. This & the medical industry would loose about a billion a year in billings if all parents decide not to circumcise. So doctors promote circumcising & disregard the potential harm & boy's right to bodily integrity.
Infantile circumcision indicates something profoundly disturbing & sick about Americans, & of course Americans refute this degeneracy. American insistence on continuing to circumcise male infants is disturbing to the rest of the modern world & the most medically advanced countries (See International Refute to AAP 2012 circumcision decision report on official AAP website). Americans prefer staying uninformed, maintaining misinformation, & to ignorantly continue circumcising infant males no matter what. American people prefer ignorance & circumcised penis, even if that means the lives of a certain number of boys each year, & thousands of other (slightly or severely) botched circumcisions, the results of which remain for a male's lifetime, & most doctors have examined a number of circumcision mishap burdened penises. Still, The Doctors maintain an active popular circumcision proponent role rather than genuine medical integrity when discussing circumcision.
Physicians who accommodate the resulting demand for infantile circumcision are in disregard of basic moral ethics of medical practice. It is strange that circumcising male infants has become an OB/GYN function. OB/GYN doctors have no other involvement with after birth care, specifically train & specialize about the female genitourinary system, but go at infant penis's to circumcise. Does that make sense other than it adds to OB/GYN insurance & medicaid billing? OB/GYN physicians found an additional obscure billing revenue, & from what I have observed, OB/GYNs are the most brutal when circumcising baby boys. I attended morbidity conference when an OB/GYN doctor reported she amputated the penis of a 3 day old baby. After the presentation, nearly all doctors' comments were concern about pending litigation & case effects on the woman's medical career. Only one doctor made a comment about damage to the child's body & life. That doctor said something like, "He's never going to have much length, but with good reconstructive surgery, he might still be able to father children without resorting to in vitro." Tragedies like this are not so rare, & instead, very few get any publicity, & that goes the same for deaths that occur from circumcision. Perhaps such catastrophic circumcision incident rates are low. more importantly, the catastrophe rate is 0% for those who don't get circumcised. So why does the medical industry have involvement & accept such unnecessary risk at the expense of infants? Oh, that's right, a billion a year in billings.
Most doctors are in the know, & certainly would not allow interns or residents (who do most of the circumcising) to go at their own sons' penises. The same doctors will tell you it's fine & risks are minimal for your sons. When you choose to circumcise, & it doesn't turn out right, take a look in the mirror to see who's to blame.
Wonderful, extremely disturbing and highly informative remarks. This premeditated, brutal assault on babies and boys - some of it carried out by complete novices behind closed doors in hospitals of all places - is built on ignorance and deception. Hidden from view and shrouded in secrecy, systematic circumcision is actually a good indicator of the amount of barbarity and savagery going on in a society.
Great video; every prospective parent needs to see this!
It's ridiculous that this type of ignorance still goes on in the US.
Whose Body, Whose Rights? Circumcision Ethics (Part 1/2)
It is utterly shameful that the AAP in the USA, and the BMA and NSPCC in the UK still have to find the guts to condemn this dark age barbarity.
I have been in psychiatry for two months because I was walking in capital and was telling to people it is not ok to cut skin from male penises but now I know it is ok and once I said it is like women dont have skin on clitoris but I know it is not same.
Why do you think it is okay?
In some way it is ok because of HIV, STD, because of phimosa and paraphimosa but in my opinion it is not OK because God made us perfect and nature made us perfect and we should not cut off forskin
Babies don't contract HIV or STDs from sex, and babies do not have phimosis or paraphimosis, so why cut them when nothing is wrong? These are things that only affect adults. And you realize that circumcision does not prevent HIV in developed countries right? Only in third world countries where the primary method of transmission is through heterosexual sex. And it only partially protects men getting HIV from women. It does not protect women, or men getting it from other men. The US is a mostly circumcised nation, and has higher HIV and STD transmission than in any European country (where they don't circumcise). Also, condoms are used to prevent these things (whether you are cut or not). And phimosis and paraphimosis are rare conditions that can be cured without circumcision. And even if that was the option, shouldn't it only be done if a male has that condition?
Nope, spend some time in a VD clinic, then ask yourself why they are full of cut men.
+haris kasmo circumcision dosen't prevent infection. circumcised men can still get diseases and infection too.
Circumcision is barbaric, brutal and unnecessary. Keep your boys intact.All expecting parents should watch a video of a baby being circumcised.
mind u Curcumcision according to the covenant is only for the males not females.x
That applies to your religion. Muslims are under a different law (sharia) and many of them practice female genital mutilation like Jews do with males.
If you have chosen a modern style circumcision for your child that destroys the entire foreskin, you've already broken the covenant and moved into sexual assault. The original Jewish circumcision bears little resemblance to the current one.
@@jjpetersen5296and what was the original circumcision hmmm?😷😷
@@crystallinemushroom4803 It involved removing far less tissue and leaving the glans covered or mostly covered. It's still painful, abusive and dumb but not as awful as the modern version which permanently exposes the entire glans. Jewish rabbis adopted the new, more dangerous, more damaging style in the middle of the 2nd century AD. It's a cultural practice, not a religious requirement of any religion anywhere including Judaism.
@@jjpetersen5296 ok thanks for the history and information